Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study (NYC-SIGHT): a nested cross-sectional assessment of falls risk within a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the feasibility of using the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths and Injuries (STEADI) Falls Risk Tool Kit during community-based eye health screenings to assess falls risk of participants enrolled in the Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-Up Study (NYC-SIGHT). METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of data from a 5-year prospective, cluster-randomised clinical trial conducted in affordable housing developments in New York City in adults age 40 years and older. Prescreening questions determined whether participants were at risk of falling. STEADI tests classified participants at low, moderate or high risk of falling. Multivariate logistic regression determined odds of falls risk of all enrolled participants. RESULTS: 708 participants completed the eye health screening; 351 (49.6%) performed STEADI tests; mean age: 71.0 years (SD±11.3); 72.1% female; 53.6% Black, non-Hispanic, 37.6% Hispanic/Latino. Level of falls risk: 32 (9.1%) low, 188 (53.6%) moderate and 131 (37.3%) high. Individuals age >80 (OR 5.921, 95% CI (2.383 to 14.708), p=0.000), had blurry vision (OR 1.978, 95% CI (1.186 to 3.300), p=0.009), high blood pressure (OR 2.131, 95% CI (1.252 to 3.628), p=0.005), arthritis (OR 2.29876, 95% CI (1.362 to 3.875), p=0.002) or foot problems (OR 5.239, 95% CI (2.947 to 9.314), p=0.000) had significantly higher odds of falling, emergency department visits or hospitalisation due to falling. CONCLUSION: This study detected a significant amount of falls risk in an underserved population. The STEADI Falls Risk screening questions were easy for eye care providers to ask, were highly predictive of falls risk and may be adequate for referral to occupational health and/or physical therapy.

Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study (NYC-SIGHT): Vision and refractive error results.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Optometrists can play a key role in providing access to eye care in underserved populations by organising community-based eye health screenings that include optometric exams to detect vision impairment and uncorrected refractive error. BACKGROUND: Community-based eye health screenings and optometric exams were conducted in the NYC-SIGHT Study. METHODS: A sub-analysis of vision impairment and refractive error results within a 5-year prospective, cluster-randomised clinical trial. Eligible individuals (age ≥40 years) were recruited from 10 affordable housing developments in Upper Manhattan. Developments were randomised into usual care (received glasses prescription only) and intervention (free glasses) groups. Participants with 6/12 visual acuity or worse, intraocular pressure 23-29 mmHg, or an unreadable fundus image were scheduled with the study optometrist for refraction and a non-dilated exam. Visual improvement data were obtained by comparing the presenting acuity at screening compared to the best corrected acuity after refraction by the optometrist. Chi-square, two-sample t-tests, and a stepwise multivariate logistic regression model were used to determined factors associated with improvable visual impairment. RESULTS: Seven hundred and eight participants completed screening, 308 received an optometric exam. Those with improvable vision impairment (n = 251), mean age: 69.8 years, 70.5% female, 53% African American, 39.8% Hispanic, >95% had health insurance. Refractive error diagnosed in 87.8% of the participants; lines of improvement: 2 lines (n = 59), 3 to 5 lines (n = 120), and ≥6 lines (n = 72). Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that participants with visual acuity 6/12 or worse (odds ratio 16.041, 95% confidence interval 6.009 to 42.822, p = 0.000) or a normal fundus image (odds ratio 2.783, 95% confidence interval 1.001 to 7.740, p = 0.05) had significantly higher odds of improvable vision impairment. CONCLUSION: This innovative, targeted community-based study included an optometrist who detected high rates of refractive error and improvable vision impairment in an underserved population living in New York City.

Association of Psychosocial Factors with Activation Among Patients with Glaucoma.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of psychosocial factors with health self-management behaviors and beliefs among patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n = 202) with mild, moderate, or advanced bilateral POAG. METHODS: Patients (N = 1164) were identified from electronic medical records at a single academic medical center. Letters soliciting participation were mailed to 591 randomly selected potential participants. Psychometric measures and a social determinants of health questionnaire were administered by phone to 202 study participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-8 (NEI-VFQ), the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC), the Perceived Medical Condition Self-Management Scale-4, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ), the Patient Activation Measure-13 (PAM), a health literacy question, and a social determinants of health questionnaire. RESULTS: For each increase in level of POAG severity, there was a decrease in mean NEI-VFQ score (P < 0.001). For each unit increase in NEI-VFQ item 1, self-rated vision, mean PAM score increased (R2 = 5.3%; P = 0.001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.077-0.276). For each unit increase in "Internal" on the MHLC, mean PAM score increased (R2 = 19.3%; 95% CI, 0.649-1.166; P < 0.001). For each unit increase in "Doctors" on the MHLC, mean PAM score increased (R2 = 11.0%; 95% CI, 1.555-3.606; P < 0.001). For each unit increase in "Chance" on the MHLC, mean PAM score decreased (R2 = 2.6%; 95% CI, -0.664 to -0.051; P = 0.023). On multivariate analysis, adjusting for age, sex and race, for each unit increase in PHQ, mean PAM score decreased (95% CI, 0.061-1.35; P = 0.032); for each unit increase in MHLC "Doctors", mean PAM score increased (95% CI, -1.448 to 3.453; P < 0.001); for each unit increase in MHLC "Internal", mean PAM score increased (95% CI, 0.639-1.137; P < 0.001); for each unit increase in MHLC "Chance", mean PAM score decreased (95% CI, -0.685 to -0.098; P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: We identified modifiable behavioral factors that could increase patients' self-perceived ability and confidence to manage their own eye care. Locus of control (MHLC), level of depression (PHQ), and self-rated functional vision (NEI-VFQ) were each associated with patient behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs needed for health self-management (activation, assessed by the PAM) and may be important determinants of adherence behaviors. Targeting change in patients' care beliefs and behaviors may improve activation and treatment outcomes. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-Up Study (NYC-SIGHT): optometric exam improves access and utilization of eye care services.

PURPOSE: To describe the benefits of optometric evaluation for detection of vision-affecting conditions in the context of community-based eye health screenings and identify factors associated with having a recent dilated eye exam. METHODS: Enrolled participants were age 40 and older, living independently in affordable housing developments in New York City. Eye health screening failure and criteria for seeing the on-site study optometrist were defined as visual acuity 20/40 or worse in either eye, intraocular pressure 23-29 mmHg, or an unreadable fundus image. The optometrist conducted a manifest refraction using loose lenses and used a portable slit lamp and ophthalmoscope to perform a non-dilated anterior and posterior segment ocular health evaluation. Demographics, social determinants of health, eye health screening results, and rates of suspected ophthalmic conditions were recorded. To determine factors associated with having a recent dilated eye exam, which was the main outcome for this statistical analysis, a stepwise multivariate logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: A total of 708 participants were screened, 308 attended the optometric exam; mean age 70.7 ± 11.7 [standard deviation (SD)] years. Among this subgroup, 70.1% identified as female, 54.9% self-identified as African American, 39% as Hispanic/Latino, and 26.6% Dominican ethnicity; 78.2% (241/308) had not undergone a dilated eye exam within the last year, 71.4% reported they did not have an eye care provider. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that participants who self-reported having cataracts (odds ratio (OR) 2.15; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-4.47; p = 0.041), self-reported having glaucoma/glaucoma suspect (OR 5.60; 95% CI 2.02-15.43; p = 0.001), or spoke Spanish as their primary language (OR 3.25; 95% CI 1.48-7.11; p = 0.003) had higher odds of having a recent dilated eye exam. CONCLUSIONS: This community-based screening initiative demonstrated the effectiveness of optometric exams in detecting vision-affecting conditions and identified factors associated with having a recent dilated eye exam. Optometrists play a vital role in increasing access to eye care for high-risk, underserved populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04271709).

Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-Up Study: (NYC-SIGHT)Tele-Retinal Image Findings and Importance of Photography.

Purpose: To describe tele-retinal abnormality image findings from the Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study (NYC-SIGHT), which aims to investigate whether community-based eye health outreach strategies using telemedicine can improve visual outcomes among at-risk populations in Upper Manhattan. Methods: A 5-year prospective, cluster-randomized clinical trial was conducted. Eligible individuals aged 40 years and older were recruited from affordable housing developments and senior centers in New York City. Participants underwent on-site eye health screening (best-corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure [IOP] measurements, and fundus photography). Fundus images were graded via telemedicine by a retina specialist. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to assess the factors associated with abnormal retinal findings requiring referral to ophthalmology. Results: Participants with a retinal abnormality on fundus photography (n = 157) were predominantly older adults, with a mean age of 68.4 ± 11.1 years, female (63.7%), African American (50.3%), and Hispanic (43.3%). A total of 32 participants in our study passed the vision and IOP screening but had an abnormal retinal image and ocular pathology that would have been missed without fundus photography. Individuals who self-identified as having preexisting glaucoma (odds ratio [OR] = 3.749, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.741-8.074, p = 0.0001) and had severe vision impairment (OR = 4.1034, 95% CI = 2.0740-8.1186, p = 0.000) at the screening had significantly higher odds of having an abnormal retinal image. Conclusion: This community-based study targeted populations at-risk for eye disease, improved access to eye care, detected a significant number of retinal image abnormalities requiring follow-up by using telemedicine, and provided evidence of the importance of fundus photography during eye health screenings. CTR number: NCT04271709.

Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-Up Study (NYC-SIGHT): Subanalysis of Referral to Ophthalmology.

PURPOSE: The Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study aims to provide access to eye care for underserved populations, detect native rates of ocular pathology, and refer participants with eye disease to ophthalmology. This subanalysis describes the reasons for referral to ophthalmology and identifies risk factors associated with being referred. METHODS: Enrolled participants were aged ≥40 years, living independently in public housing developments and able to provide consent for eye health screenings. Those with habitual visual acuity 20/40 or worse, intraocular pressure (IOP) 23-29 mmHg, or an unreadable fundus image failed and were scheduled with the on-site optometrist. The optometric exam determined whether further referral to ophthalmology for a clinic exam was warranted. Those with an abnormal image or IOP ≥30 mmHg were referred directly to ophthalmology. Main outcome was factors associated with referral to ophthalmology. RESULTS: A total of 708 individuals completed the eye health screening over 15 months. A total of 468 participants were referred to ophthalmology (250 had an abnormal image and 218 were referred by the optometrist). Those referred were predominantly older adults (mean age 70.0 ± 11.4 years), female (66.7%), African American (55.1%) and Hispanic (39.5%). Seventy percent of participants had not had a recent eye exam. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that participants with pre-existing glaucoma (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.62 to 6.08, p = 0.001), an IOP ≥23 mmHg (OR 5.04, 95% 1.91 to 13.28, p = 0.001), or vision impairment (mild) (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.77, p = 0.001) had significantly higher odds of being referred to ophthalmology. CONCLUSION: This targeted community-based study in Upper Manhattan provided access to eye care and detected a significant amount of ocular pathology requiring referral to ophthalmology in this high-risk population.

Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study (NYC-SIGHT): Baseline Results and Costs of a Cluster-Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To describe the 15-month baseline results and costs of the Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study, which aims to investigate whether innovative community-based eye health screening can improve early detection and management of glaucoma and other eye diseases among high-risk populations. DESIGN: Five-year prospective, cluster-randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Individuals aged 40+ years were recruited from public housing buildings in New York City for an eye health screening (visual acuity (VA) with correction, intraocular pressure measurements (IOP), and fundus photography). Participants with VA 20/40 or worse, IOP 23-29 mm Hg, or an unreadable fundus image failed the screening and were scheduled for an optometric examination at the same location; those with an abnormal image were referred to ophthalmology. A cost analysis was conducted alongside the study. RESULTS: A total of 708 participants were screened; mean age 68.6±11.9 years, female (65.1%), African American (51.8%) and Hispanic (42%). 78.4% (n = 555) failed the eye health screening; 35% (n= 250) had an abnormal image and were also referred to ophthalmology. 308 participants attended the optometric exam; 218 were referred to ophthalmology. Overall, 66.1% were referred to ophthalmology. The cost per participant to deliver the eye health screening and optometric examination was $180.88. The cost per case of eye disease detected was $273.64. CONCLUSIONS: This innovative study in public housing developments targeted high-risk populations, provided access to eye-care, and improved early detection of ocular diseases in New York City. The study has identified strategies to overcoming barriers to eye care to reduce eye health disparities.

Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-Up Study in Vulnerable Populations: 1-Month Feasibility Results.

Purpose/Aim: In the United States, high rates of vision impairment and eye disease disproportionately impact those who lack access to eye care, specifically vulnerable populations. The objective of our study was to test instruments, implement protocols, and collect preliminary data for a larger 5-year study, which aims to improve detection of eye diseases and follow-up eye care in vulnerable populations using community health workers (CHW) and patient navigators. In the study, trained CHWs conducted vision screening and patient navigators scheduled on-site eye exams and arranged appointments for those referred to ophthalmology to improve adherence to follow-up eye care.Materials and Methods: Eligible individuals age 40-and-older were recruited from the Riverstone Senior Center in Upper Manhattan, New York City. Participants underwent on-site vision screening (visual acuity with correction, intraocular pressure measurements, and fundus photography). Individuals who failed the vision screening were scheduled with an on-site optometrist for an eye exam; those with ocular pathologies were referred to an ophthalmologist. Participants were also administered the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-8 (NEI-VFQ-8) and Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths, and Injuries (STEADI) test by community health workers.Results:Participants (n = 42) were predominantly older adults, with a mean age of 70.0 ± 9.8, female (61.9%), and Hispanic (78.6%). Most individuals (78.6%, n = 33) failed vision screening. Of those who failed, 84.8% (n = 28) attended the on-site eye exam with the optometrist. Ocular diagnoses: refractive error 13/28 (46.4%), glaucoma/glaucoma suspect 9/28 (32.1%), cataract 7/28 (25.0%), retina abnormalities 6/28 (21.4%); 13 people required eyeglasses.Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility of using CHWs and patient navigators for reducing barriers to vision screening and optometrist-based eye exams in vulnerable populations, ultimately improving early detection of eye disease and linking individuals to additional eye care appointments. The full five-year study aims to further examine these outcomes.

Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study in Vulnerable Populations (NYC-SIGHT): Design and Methodology.

PRCIS: The Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study in Vulnerable Populations is a 5-year prospective, cluster-randomized study to improve detection and management of glaucoma and other eye diseases in vulnerable populations living in affordable housing developments. PURPOSE: To describe the study design and methodology of the Manhattan Vision Screening and Follow-up Study in Vulnerable Populations, which aims to investigate whether community-based vision screenings can improve detection and management of glaucoma, vision impairment, cataract, and other eye diseases among vulnerable populations living in affordable housing developments in upper Manhattan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This 5-year prospective, cluster-randomized, controlled trial consists of vision screening and referral for follow-up eye care among eligible residents aged 40 and older. Visual acuity, intraocular pressure (IOP), and fundus photography are measured. Participants with visual worse than 20/40, or IOP 23 to 29 mm Hg, or unreadable fundus images fail the screening and are scheduled with the on-site optometrist. Those with an abnormal image and/or IOP ≥30 mm Hg, are assigned as "fast-track" and referred to ophthalmology. Participants living in 7 developments randomized to the Enhanced Intervention Group who fail the screening and need vision correction receive complimentary eyeglasses. Those referred to ophthalmology receive enhanced support with patient navigators to assist with follow-up eye care. Participants living in 3 developments randomized to the Usual Care Group who fail the screening and need vision correction are given an eyeglasses prescription only and a list of optical shops. No enhanced support is given to the Usual Care Group. All participants referred to ophthalmology are assisted in making their initial eye exam appointment. CONCLUSION: This study targets vulnerable populations where they live to ensure improved access to and utilization of eye care services in those who are least likely to seek eye care.